header-logo header-logo

05 May 2021
Issue: 7931 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Lugano Convention hopes dashed

The EU Commission has confirmed rumours that it opposes UK accession to the Lugano Convention, in a blow to UK businesses and consumers.

In a communication this week to the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission wrote that it ‘considers that the EU should not give its consent’ to UK accession. Its analysis included that current contracting parties all participate in the EU’s internal market and the convention supports the EU’s relationship with third countries which have ‘a particularly close regulatory integration with the EU’. It described the UK as ‘a third country without a special link to the internal market’.

The UK was a member of Lugano prior to Brexit and throughout the 11-month transition period.

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe, said: ‘The Commission is not the final arbiter of the UK’s accession to Lugano.

‘This is for the Council and individual nations. This is a significant setback but not unexpected. The losers are consumers and SMEs in the EU and UK who are left with uncertainty on dispute resolution. We hope that a majority on the Council will see the good sense for all concerned of having a common system for Europe.’

The treaty, which applies to EU and European Free Trade Area states but is also available to other states, regulates both international jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters.

Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce said: ‘Lugano makes litigation more accessible whether you are an employee with a grievance, a consumer let down by a goods or service provider, or a parent trying to enforce a maintenance order. It provides protection where one of the parties is deemed to be in a weaker position than the other: there are special regimes for employment, insurance and consumer contracts, maintenance orders.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll